Recently, the U.S. House of Representatives had a brief 30-minute debate
on the House floor about climate change. This short treatment may seem
rather banal given the controversy and media coverage on this particular
issue, but until then, floor debate on the climate change issue and related
legislation has been essentially nonexistent.

The impetus of the recent debate was an amendment attached to the appropriations
bill for the Department of the Interior. The language of the amendment
was exactly the same as a resolution passed in the Senate declaring that
the United States should enact a comprehensive and effective national
program of mandatory, market-based limits and incentives on emissions
of greenhouse gases that slow, stop and reverse the growth of such emissions.
The language made it through the appropriations committee, but was withdrawn
on a point of order because it is against the House rules to legislate
on an appropriations bill. Nevertheless, the procedural slight of hand
at least produced a short debate on the House floor, bringing attention
to this important issue.

As a citizen and scientist, as well as a congressional staffer, I found
the debate vexing. On one side of the debate were up-to-date statistics
and theories accepted by the scientific community, verified in a recent
report from the National Academy of Sciences, concerning past, present
and future global carbon dioxide concentrations and surface temperatures.
The representatives combined that information with anecdotal evidence
of melting glaciers and record-high temperatures to put together a solid,
reasonable argument for why the United States should immediately commit
to mitigating the effects of climate change. Several congressional members
representing both political parties spoke in favor of the amendment.

The other side of the debate, however, was entirely different. The argument
of the lone member of Congress to speak against the amendment was riddled
with seemingly off the cuff and unsubstantiated statistics and factoids.
In an attempt to discredit most all science done on climate change as
nefarious, Rep. Don Young (R-Alaska) said: I will ask each and every
one of you, and everybody watching and everybody talking this fear tactic,
what melted that ice all the way to the North Pole before mankind set
foot on this continent. It certainly wasnt hair spray or Freon
If you look at any of the studies that are taking place now, the polar
bear pack is very healthy and, in fact, increasing Do not just read
the fear tactic.

Perhaps the foundation for this side of the debate came from across the
Hill, as Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.), chairman of the Committee on Environment
and Public Works, had gone on record with the statement: With all
the fear, all the hysteria, all the phony science, could it be that manmade
global warming is the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people?
It sure sounds like it.

As a scientist, I am appalled and insulted by the way this debate is
being conducted and the content included therein. Many of the statements
are simply incorrect. First, I have only seen hairspray directly contribute
to global warming at the lone fraternity party I attended in college when
an industrious student decided to make a homemade flame thrower.

Second, several recent scientific studies, including some by government
agencies, have documented the effects of shrinking ice caps on the health
and sustainability of polar bear populations. Most striking have been
numerous documented cases of several polar bears drowning and even three
cases of polar bear cannibalism. These peer-reviewed studies have led
to a petition for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to place the polar
bear on the endangered species list. To me, that does not sound like a
healthy and vibrant polar bear pack.

Members of Congress and their staff have access to perhaps the best library
and research service in the world. With the use of the nonpartisan Library
of Congress and accompanying Congressional Research Service, there is
no reason or excuse for incorrect facts, scientific or otherwise, in House
floor statements.

My main concern, however, is how the blatant misuse of science in this
winner-take-all style of debate might affect the public perception and,
in the end, the overall usefulness of science. In our reality-show, fast-news
society, public perception is often, if not always, public reality. So
when debates like the climate change one on the House floor are condensed
to a sound byte for the evening news, the severe contradiction of scientific
findings coupled with phrases like phony science and fear
tactics often leads the public to perceive science in a negative
light.

As a result, those misusing scientific fact  the ones denigrating
scientists and the practice of science for personal gain  have won
the debate. I am not for a minute naïve enough to think that they
came across this tactical victory by mistake.

I have concluded that better science education is the only viable way
to combat this type of irresponsible, yet effective, style of governing.
Greater public understanding of science and sound scientific processes
have the potential to transform our society.

We are facing real and immediate energy and environmental challenges
that require genuine and progressive leadership to solve. Gone are the
days when we can wait around for singular technological solutions to solve
our problems. Now is a time of tough, informed decisions and strong national
commitments.

Everyone must begin to hold our leaders and themselves accountable for
their decisions regarding our energy future. This is the greatest lesson
I carry forward with me, as I end my tenure on Capitol Hill and venture
back into the classroom. I say all hands on deck!

Quane is the William L.
Fisher 2005-2006 American Geological Institute Congressional Fellow, one
of about 30 fellows sponsored by science and engineering societies. He is
working in the office of Rep. Tom Udall (D-N.M.) this year. The views are
those of the author alone and do not necessarily represent Rep. Udall or
any other individual or or entity.